ral31 wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
From what I've generally come to understand....
"Evolution" is the theory that explains how the various species of plants and animals came to exist.
"Natural selection" is the theory that addresses how certain traits are selected for, or selected against.
People confuse "evolution" with "natural selection" all the time.
Anyway, in terms of "natural selection," the concept of what constitutes "the fittest" is subjective and depends entirely on the environment. There is no objective, over-arching standard for what traits are "the fittest." All that nature requires is that we survive long enough to pass on our genes; nature does not care about physical strength or "intelligence." If a weak, stupid animal manages to mate and produce offspring, then that animal is "fit." Charles Fort joked that the concept of "survival of the fittest" can be summed up by saying "survivors survive."
If a single mother, with an IQ of 70, who is on welfare and food stamps, manages to have ten children, then she has adapted to our MODERN environment and is "fit" to survive. If you disapprove of the traits that our modern environment allow to survive, then it is a reflection of your prejudice, not of a failure of "evolution." Evolution does not have opinions on which traits are "fittest," only humans do.
"Survival of the fittest" = "survivors survive."
I wish people would stop anthropomorphizing nature.
This is correct.
More often than not the "fittest" are the ones that go extinct. They are specialized to their environment and unable to adapt quickly when major changes occur. It should be survival of the luckiest. Mammals are an excellent example. When the dinosaurs went extinct they were the most "fit" and abundant creatures on the planet, mammals were tiny and existed on the periphery.
Natural Selection does have an effect on Evolution over very long time periods by determining what traits are available. Evolution of a new species can occur when there is a population bottleneck or if a small population gets isolated from the general population (e.g.-island.) So technically, human evolution is at a standstill. However, natural selection is busily at work determining which traits will be available when the next opportunity arises.
*Crud, looks like the conversation outran me while I was writing this.
Heh.
Primates are a special interest of mine.
I read an amusing anecdote wherein a baboon troop had to fight through the territory of another baboon troop in order to reach a dumpster behind a tourist lodge. Obviously, the biggest, meanest alpha males were the only ones able to reach the dumpster. It worked out really well for them until the owners of the lodge threw away meat that had been infected with deadly bacteria and all of the alpha males died.
Subsequently, the two warring baboon troops combined in the absence of the aggressive males and enjoyed a decade of peace and good breeding. So much for "strength."
The only thing "survival of the fittest" means is that an individual survives long enough to produce offspring. It doesn't matter if that individual is physically weak, stupid, ect. If they have babies, they're "fit." Period. Granted, there are certain traits that generally promote breeding more than others, but it's hardly a sure thing.
_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."
-XFG (no longer a moderator)
31 Dec 2011, 12:57 pm
